Strength of the Material

Exercise 4.
Giventhe following light ship condition, determineW (T/m) and M (T/m). Make the long. system scantling of ship and find the
ultimate bending moment in case of sagging and hogging, by using two methods: Paik method and Rahman method.
Compare the results and comment why do you think the results are different?

20m

4.5m

5.5m

100m

H=11m

B=16m
Section A-A

Strength of the Material

Ship scantling
The scantling has done by longitudinal system. There is no transverse bulkheads considered on this exercises. The frames
and the girder are identical in dimensions, so that both elements share the load and support each other.
We adopt the following values in the exercise:
Frame Spacing:

Stiffener Spacing:

2500 mm
500 mm

Bottom Plate Thickness:

17 mm

Side Shell Thickness:

12 mm

Deck Plate Thickness:

10 mm

Bottom [mm]

Side [mm]

Deck [mm]

Girder & Frames [mm]

HW

250

HW

200

HW

150

HW

TW

20

TW

10

TW

10

TW

500
20

HF

100

HF

100

HF

80

HF

200

TF

25

TF

15

TF

15

TF

20

Stiffener Dimensions

Strength of the Material

Gider

Neutral
axis

4.584

A
Gider

Section A-A

'""(%")%""(%!

!"#$
!""('")'""('"

!"#$

!"#$

'!"('")%""('!

%&$$

%'$$

!"#$

!"#$%&'(

Strength of the Material

Ultimat bending moment by Paik

Using the program developed in Fortran we got ultimat bending moment for case of Sagging and Hogging. The obtained
data are presented in the following table.

Results of Paik method - Deck Panels

Beta

1.7251

Lamda

0.4345

Yield strenght

250.0

N/mm2

Ultimate compressive strenght

187.3

N/mm2

Relative Iltimate strenght SULT/SY

0.749

Results of Paik method - Bottom Panels

Beta

1.0148

Lamda

0.2546

Yield strenght

250.0

N/mm2

Ultimate compressive strenght

224.2

N/mm2

Relative Iltimate strenght SULT/SY

0.897

Results of Paik method - Side Shell (upper/lower)

Beta

1.4376

Lamda

0.3284

Yield strenght

250.0

N/mm2

Ultimate compressive strenght

204.9

N/mm2

Relative Iltimate strenght SULT/SY

0.82

Results of Paik method - Ultimate bending moments

Fully plastic bending moment

kNm

2.7621

Fully plastic shear force

65386.8

kN

Neutral axis
SAGGING: Ultimate bending moment MU
MULT/MPlastic
HOGGING: Ultimate bending moment MU
MULT/MPlastic

Strength of the Material

1365752

G axis

4.527

1 114 864

kNm

0.8163
1 268 021

kNm

0.9284

Ultimat bending moment by progresive collaps analyses ( method of Rahman)

Using the program developed by Fortran of Rahmans method we consider also the value of lateral pressure and initial
imperfection. In the obtained result we can see what is the strength of the stiffener and what for the plate and we can know
what will buckle first. The results obtained from Rahmans method are presented in the following table:

Results of Rahman method - Deck Panels

Panel strenght when stiffenr is under compress.

240.80

N/mm2

Panel strenght when plate is under compress.

190.37

N/mm2

Yield strenght

250.0

N/mm2

Ultimate compressive strenght (we take the smallest)

190.37

N/mm2

Relative Iltimate strenght SULT/SY

0.7615

Results of Rahman method - Bottom panels

Panel strenght when stiffenr is under compress.

224.45

N/mm2

Panel strenght when plate is under compress.

201.67

N/mm2

Yield strenght

250.0

N/mm2

Ultimate compressive strenght (we take the smallest)

201.67

N/mm2

Relative Iltimate strenght SULT/SY

0.8067

Panel strenght when stiffenr is under compress.

217.54

N/mm2

Panel strenght when plate is under compress.

191.24

N/mm2

Yield strenght

250.0

N/mm2

Ultimate compressive strenght (we take the smallest)

191.24

N/mm2

Relative Iltimate strenght SULT/SY

0.765

Results of Rahman method - Side Shell

Results of Rahman method - Ultimate bending moments

Fully plastic bending moment

1353000

kNm

SAGGING: Ultimate bending moment MU

987 269

kNm

MULT/MPlastic
HOGGING: Ultimate bending moment MU
MULT/MPlastic

Strength of the Material

0.729
1 233 157

kNm

0.911

Now we can present our data of progresive collaps ( in matlab program) in stress-strain relations for the case sagging and
hogging in the same diagram in order to see the difference. In the first diagram on the X-axis is mean strain and on the Y-axis
is applied strss in [N/mm2 or MPa]. In the second diagram on the X-axis is relation of applied strain/yield strain and on the Yaxis is applied strss/yield stress. We can see the tree zones of the Rahmans method. First zone is stable zone, second one
is no-load shedding zone where the ultimate stress is reached and remain constant for some time, and the third zone is
postcolapse or load-sheding zone where we have decreasing of the stress. The yield stress is 250 [N/mm2].

In the next table we can see the comparison between results of Paik method and Rahman method, so we have:
Comparison between two methods
Description

Paik

Rahman

Unit

Deck - Ultimate compressive strenght

187.3

190.37

N/mm2

Deck - Relative ultimate strenght SULT/SY

0.749

0.761

Bottom - Ultimate compressive strenght

224.2

201.67

N/mm2

Bottom - Relative ultimate strenght SULT/SY

0.897

0.8067

Side shell - Ultimate compressive strenght

204.9

191.24

N/mm2

Side shell - Relative ultimate strenght SULT/SY

SAGGING: Ultimate bending moment MU
MULT/MPlastic
HOGGING: Ultimate bending moment MU
MULT/MPlastic

Strength of the Material

0.82

0.765

1 114 864

987 269

kNm

0.8163

0.729

1 268 021

1 233 157

0.9284

0.911

kNm

Conclusion
The Paik method is based on the empirical formulation of the ultimate compressive strength of a stiffened panel as a function
of the plate slenderness and the column slenderness ratio and dont consider any effective with of plate. It takes into
account residual stress and initial imperfections but it is implicitly included in the relations and cannot be changed. This
method also doesnt include the lateral pressure.
Rahmans method is progressive collapse analysis which is based on approach of applied incremental curvature. The
ultimate compressive strength of a stiffened panel is determined according to Hughes method. This method takes into
account lateral pressure. The residual stress and initial imperfection are not included into the relation, in this method you
enter these values. In my case I assume 10% of residual stress and 0.001 for the initial imperfection.
The results that obtained from both methods are different. The Rahmans method gave us smaller results for the bending
moments and stiffened panels except for the deck where gave bigger value in comperison with Paik.
Comparison between two methods
Description

Paik

Rahman

Diffe.

Unit

Deck - Ultimate compressive strenght

187.3

<

190.3

3.07

N/mm2

Bottom - Ultimate compressive strenght

224.2

>

201.6

22.6

N/mm2

Side shell - Ultimate compressive strenght

204.9

>

191.2

13.7

N/mm2

SAGGING: Ultimate bending moment MU

1 114 864

>

987 269

127 595

kNm

HOGGING: Ultimate bending moment MU

1 268 021

>

1 233 157

34 864

kNm

If we look to the scanling we can see that the web plates on the deck are (150x15) that are shorter than the side or bottom
web plates. Now just to play little bit I will change the aspect ratio of web profile on the deck and side shell but keeping the
same section area. Instead of web dimension 150x15 I will put 225x10 for deck which is the same area and instead of
200x15 put 250x12 to be more slender. Also I will try to exclude the lateral pressure from the second method, so I will keep
it zero. Now start the both programs again and we got:
Comparison between two methods
Rahman

Diffe.

Unit

Deck - Ultimate compressive strenght

Description

195.71

Paik
>

195.75

0.04

N/mm2

Bottom - Ultimate compressive strenght

224.2

>

211.6

12.6

N/mm2

Side shell - Ultimate compressive strenght

208.3

>

203.8

4.5

N/mm2

SAGGING: Ultimate bending moment MU

1 145 427

>

1071 910

73 517

kNm

HOGGING: Ultimate bending moment MU

1 269 350

>

1 261 610

7740

kNm

Now we can see that obtained results are closer. As we can see that the lateral pressure can cause some difference in the
results how it is not included into Paiks method. Also we can see that when we change the aspect ratio of scantling by
keeping the same section area, both of methods response different on it. So it may happen that for some aspect ratio
obtained results are very close but for samo another ratio little far. Also the effective width is not included implicitly into the
Paiks method.
Anyhow the results have no significant difference and both methods are good. But seams that Rahmans method is little
more accurate and provide more informations than Paiks method.

Strength of the Material